Simile

Why does anyone choose to be generalist ?

Seth has a point that world only requires specialists. But then why does anyone choose to be a generalist.

My answer is :

1. Because some specialist roles die with time - what happened to master watch maker - not the luxury kind, but the town /street’s best.

2. Many times your specialization depends on what pays you at that time. Not on what is required in future and therefore you tend to generalize.

3. One cannot predict the future specialization need. 

Or simply put… because one couldn’t figure out which specialization would make money and survive in future, one choose to be a generalist.

Everyone wants a specialist, but there could be very few who can survive being one.

Every time I see someone getting more than I do, I wonder is it because that person put in more effort or took higher risks or was lucky. In mathematical terms :

Returns (Rewards) ~ fn ( effort, risk taken, luck) 

Returns are a function of efforts, level of risk taken, right timing. Missing in this equation is the effect of catalysts/dampeners such as money, relationships etc. Catalysts act like multipliers in the function. Therefore one can rewrite the above as :

Returns = fn( effort, risk, luck) * (Catalyst power / Dampener power)

If the above is true, the recipe for success is 

1. Work hard 
2. Take calculated risks
3. Hope to be lucky (or pray if you believe it helps)
4. Identify possible catalysts - ensure their presence and effect
5. Identify dampeners - ensure their absence and reduced impact

Which are the catalysts for success?

In business and career, 

• Money 
• Relationships
• Prior success
• Relative Position / Power

We all become part of groups (companies) for :

• Security - many are better than one
• Efficiency - Cheaper, cost effective to be part of a group

But inherently groups bring problems like :

• Lack of Control - some one else seems to control my destiny and impact on me.
• Increased Friction - people are the biggest friction creators (chaos generators).

In life most of us are mix of an individual and a group member. It is degree of the mix that matters.

A individualistic lifestyle requires :

• Lots of resources - if you are rich (money or talent), you can ignore groups. Because rich can buy security and be in-efficient.

Whereas group lifestyle would need :

• Lead the pack - so that you can be in control and be above the lower level frictions.

Either way, riches and ownership seems to be the only way to have better life.

I am not born with lots of resources (neither got from my parents). Therefore my goal in life should be :

1. To acquire as much resources as possible. Talent wise as well as $$ wise.
2. Become owner /leader of something. (Even if it is a small piece of a big group) As autonomous as possible.
3. Deploy the earned resources to achieve the above two.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jan2008/id2008012_297369.htm

Interesting article by Bill Buxton in Businessweek.

I like the metaphor of long nose (in line with long tail). The main take aways for me :

1. If you are an inventor, you would be long dead before your invention makes money.

2. Dramatic changes in the world comes takes long time after the initial idea.

3. Ecosystem has to be ready, to create the big impact.

4. Big changes are based on many small ideas.

5. Think of it as a building. Each idea is just a small brick. Many types of materials and techniques have to evolve to create a unique building.

6. It is similar to “Life”. Life evolves through reproduction and mutations. It takes generations (ages..) to create a human from a single cell. Same thing applies to ideas. I read somewhere that darwin’s theories can be used to describe evolution of ideas / memes as well.

7. Unlike religious beliefs - god created (invented) humans and other species - Darwinism says that everything is result of evolution.  

Business has three stakeholders :

1. Shareholder - who provided money

2. Employee / resources - who convert money into something

3. Customer - who converts that somethinginto money, which is distributed to first two.

Most businesses are driven to maximize benefits for shareholders.

• Take care of employee, so that he/she can generate more $$ for the shareholder
• Make customer happy, if he pays higher $$ which goes to shareholders.

All three players are inter-related. You cannot isolate any one. In general terms, it is better to have all three happy. But then that is just a optimum solution.

All businesses are driven to maximize shareholder value. This comes from capitalist thinking,

• people are freely available, money(capital) is scarce
• bigger is better for efficiencies (factories, mass products, walmart…)
• Money is the best catalyst

Other 2 models

Artists Solo business person can have a different model. They can maximize for the resource - themselves - and money be a secondary goal.

Social service have the third model. They maximize for the customer.

If you are working for an organization(job), your objective is to maximize for your boss (not just your immediate boss, but all the bosses till the shareholder).

What if there are no bosses - employees own the company equally, employee and shareholders are same. One such model only exists in cottage industry, say a tailor, a barber - one person or few people business. Western world got prosperity by moving into factory model, which killed one person businesses.